Blackfish documentary on CNN - anyone else watch it?

[FireIceTalon]

What, are you trolling me now?

No one is trolling, except maybe yourself.

Right there, you are stating our species has the capacity for being “good” and/or “bad”, that it is part of our very nature. Then you go on to tie in this desire to do good and bad with social organizations, I suppose what you’d call Capitalism. Right there, right off the bat, you’ve just proven with your statement (and you’ve said this plenty of times before) that you believe it’s our Capitalist society that brings forth the desire to be selfish and material, but this just proves your ignorance of the human condition and why you believe our species can change (with Communism) when in fact we can’t suppress the survivalist aspect of our heritage anymore than we could cease to be human!

Except your hypothesis is incorrect because history doesn't reflect what you describe. Our species HAS ALREADY changed over time, numerous times, through every epoch of history and demonstrably so. It is you, not I, that has the simplistic, mechanical view of human nature because you have been spoon fed pro-capitalist rhetoric that humans are inherently a particular way, when they very clearly, as history has proven, are not. Do you think a slave in Ancient Rome has the same conception of the world, or the same behaviors, as a serf does under Feudalism, or that either have the conception or behaviors as workers today under capitalism do? You would have to be not only dogmatic, but completely foolish, to think so. To realize that our nature is dynamic, complex and different based on our social being doesn't even require a Marxist analysis, it is just fucking common sense by now and isn't anything that hasn't already been verified anthropologically.

If your conception of humanity were the truth, Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire would still be here today, and we would still live in a social order with relations based on citizenship and slavery, but we don't. The world isn't static, it is very dynamic, and social forces will, at some point, induce change - whether that change is gradual or revolutionary. We still have class struggle, yes, but class struggle is the only common denominator between then and now - the nature of the class struggle and the characterization that it takes on are not the same now as it was then.

Of course humans have an instinct to survive, but your argument that they cannot change ever because of this point is a reductionist argument at best, entirely wrong at worst for the fact history has proven it wrong as I explained above. Class exploitation doesn't result because of "greed" - greed is an abstract USED to justify or encourage, usually by the dominant class itself, one classes dominion over another.

Lastly, the goal of communism isn't to suppress anything. In fact, it is under capitalism (not communism) where our instinct to survive is greatly suppressed because our survival depends on whether or not the capitalist class buys our labor, and if we are lucky to do that instead of standing in the unemployment line, then we forced to toil for them hourly and daily, are paid pennies for what we produce, because the capitalist class owns the means of production and extracts surplus value from our labor and pockets it for him/her self. The capitalist class is parasitic: it produces NO social value and lives off the value produced by the working class. This is an indisputable fact - a fact that neoclassical economists avoid because they know there is no refutation to this fact.

You are worried about us being dehumanized? My friend, WE ALREADY ARE DEHUMANIZED UNDER THE CURRENT SOCIAL ORDER OF CAPITALISM, because we are alienated from both our labor and the value it produces, which is commodified to produce other market commodities so the bosses can line their pockets more, at our expense. You should perhaps read something about Marxian economics before you start spouting off nonsense about "suppressing our survivalist instinct". In fact, I don't think there has ever been a better system at dehumanizing our species than capitalism, in that respect it has succeeded in spades.

What a strawman question you present; I won’t even bother to respond to it. Regarding greed, again, its part of our very nature to gather material possessions (food, wealth, and power to pass to future generations) and no regime change will alter this. What you call greed, I call one man’s self preservation – it’s all matters of perspective. This is not an oversimplification of the concept, but a truth. You, on the other hand, are trying to convolute a simple concept with undertows you don’t like by trying to convince me Communism is altruism, or at least your point of view is how our society should be.

It is you that is putting forth the strawman arguments here, not me. Again, greed and our instinct to survive are not the same, yet you conflate them to be so. In hunter/gatherer societies, there was no such thing as greed - because people did not produce a surplus of goods based on a commodity form of production for profits. They produced and consumed what they needed to survive, and that was it. This isn't my opinion, this is an observable and empirical FACT. There were no such things as classes, bosses, nation-states, or commodity production - all these things presuppose greed.

I don't call for regime change. Regime change and the destruction of an entire social order followed by the implementation of a new social order are completely different things, the second is much larger and more fundamental. I suggest you look up what the word regime means. Capitalism isn't a regime, it is a social order defined by a particular set of relationships to the productive forces of society and governed by a particular set of economic and social laws. It is no wonder you think my view is wrong, because you clearly have ZERO understanding of the Marxist framework!

Communism is NOT altruism. I repeat, it is not altruism. How many times do I have to say this? The two have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Perhaps you should start reading more Marxist sources and literature before we continue our debate, since it is quite apparent you have little or no understanding of my views. I do not know of any communist who thinks society should be organized around the idea of altruism. I have no idea where you are getting this from, but it isn't what I am arguing.

The problem isn't my views, the problem is your fantastically delusional misunderstanding of what human nature is, of how and why it changes, and ultimately has a different characterization from one social order to another. There is no static, innate or definitive human nature. There is only the human nature that is reflective (and perhaps in some ways reinforcing) of the present order of things, that is contingent only upon the existence of said present order.

How funny, because in order to believe there really is such a thing as “right” or “wrong”, you have to believe in a social structure that adheres to standards of morality governed by a society of like minded individuals which seems to oppose your communist beliefs in a lawless society, where people do what is right because they intuitively know what is right. What a strange world you believe in. The truth here FIT is that our species has an innate feeling of what is “right” or “wrong” based on emotions that have evolved inside all of us for propagation purposes, nothing more (see my post to Kath regarding our emotions as a gateway to a more prolific species). Do you think people commit acts you consider evil or vile if it didn’t serve some type of purpose to them? Other than serial murderers who have the hardwiring in their head gone wrong, doing an act you might consider evil, such as putting young girls into the sex slave trade, is usually done for money, which means its just another means of survival for someone. Some might say it’s no more evil then putting cattle in a stall where they can never move their entire lives so we can enjoy veil. Animals have emotions to, that much has been proven by science, but as you can see, when gathering supplies for survival (rather food, money, or power), it’s easy to turn a blind eye to what you might consider to be evil.

So, we reduce the argument to nihilism then? Gee, what a surprise

Your sex slave trade example its a pretty dubious one, and you only prove my point more....I think it is a mistake to say it is just done for money (although that certainly a part of it); it is also an expression of power in our male dominated society, and one avenue how women are subjugated and exploited for profit under the capitalist system. So you think the sex slave trade is ok then, because someone else is making money off that to survive? Jesus fucking christ....you are a total sociopath man, and it is no wonder the world is such a fucked up, backwards ass place to live in. Your thinking belongs in the Dark Ages. If someone kidnaps one of your kids and sells them to be a sex toy for some sick perverted fuck, you will be singin' a very different tune then, guaranteed.

As for standards of morality, these are just another ideological projection of bourgeois thought; just as Absolutism and Geocentrism were for monarchs and the Catholic Church, respectively, during feudalism. In a communist society, laws are determined by the community itself, in the most democratic ways possible, and not coercively by a ruling class that has a centralized state to uphold and carry out bourgeois law, on behalf of the bourgeois as in capitalist society. "The ruling ideas of any age are always the ideas of its ruling class". It is only strange to you, because you've been duped into believing pro-capitalist rhetoric and market fanaticism to the point where any alternative is inconceivable. As Lenin once said, "A lie told long enough becomes truth".

In one of my posts a few years back, I linked to an article showing how scientists infused RNA into mineral salt and watched the salt behave in a pattern similar to what we consider life forms, i.e. defending their “offspring”, gathering and hording vital nutrients, and one other aspect I don’t recall. This was a non-living organism that expressed the same aspects of life we view as sacred taboo of the ten-commandments! We are not so special as you seem to think we are! We have evolved to feel what we do based on these core evolutionary concepts, the ones RNA already contains. Yes, it really is that simple, that these core building blocks have grown into what we now perceive as a way of life, into our belief structure of right and wrong. But don’t you see, if you strip away all that evolutionary process, we have nothing left. We are built upon this simple concept and have evolved into our being because of our desire, through RNA, to propagate our species and survive! That’s why there is no good or evil, just different methods of survival used in varying degrees by all the different walks of life on this planet.

Now you resort to Biological Determinism, to make your point? Weak sauce.

I didn't say we were special, but now that you mention it, in some ways, yes we are. We are the ONLY species on this planet to have developed science, technology, visit space, and perhaps more importantly, we are the only species with a "history".

I dont strip away any evolutionary process - I just reject your fucking sociopathic & nihilistic view of the world.

Then you are deluding yourself. It [altruism] exists merely as a tool of our evolutionary desire to further our species. I have yet to hear of someone watching their child get murdered in front of them and calmly walking away while the incident commences nary batting an eyelash. Of course not, because our instincts of survival are so strong, we will react to this threat! We desire to have our offspring live above all else, but feel discomfort in watching others suffer not because we are “good”, but because we have evolved to do what we think is best for the survival of our species. Its too bad there are so many varying opinions on what is best, so many different methods of gathering power.

So you would say that the enhancement of our species is a selfish act? This doesn't seem logical to me. The advancement of humanity surely is a good thing, is it not? I don't think any Marxist disagrees with this, unless you mean something else. The problem is, capitalism is very detrimental for this - because the system isn't designed out of a desire for human advancement or need, it is for a desire of PROFITS, EXPLOITATION, and POWER - which are antithetical to human need. You cannot have a system that does both of these things - it is one or the other. I don't like black and white arguments but in this case there can be no reconciliation between the two. In general, your post only serves to strengthen my viewpoint even more. I didn't really need the help, but thanks anyway.

And again, where do you get the idea that I am a supporter of altruism and think that is a philosophy that should be the guiding rule for how society is organized? For the last time, communism and altruism have no relationship to one another. The actual nature of people will be a natural consequence of the particular social relations that are intrinsic to communism, just as the nature of people as we see them presently are a natural consequence of the social relations that are intrinsic to capitalism. It makes no sense whatsoever to believe that our social being is going to be the same under communism as it is now, considering the social relationships between both social orders would be completely different from one another. Human behavior and consciousness have developed since the dawn of our species, so your argument is just irrational with no empirical basis to back it up.

You would do well to learn more about my views before arguing against them, lest you create strawman arguments as you have done throughout your entire post.